I guess I should say I don't stretch before because it might affect it. After the workout is a good place to put a little stretching. But I have to wonder if we even need to stretch at all. I remember in gym class, they would have us stretch and stretch and stretch and I never made any progress. There was this whole thing where you had to reach so far past your toes. We would be pushed to do it, so I would stretch until the pain was too much. I think my hamstrings are just shorter than average and the test was the thing that was the most inflexible. So it could be that stretching doesn't really do anything.

Of course stretching does 'something'. If you have a muscle that's shortened, it needs stretched. I actually believe that you should only really stretch what's tight. I also think 'dynamic' stretching is far superior i.e. moving through full ROM's. Static is just icing on the cake for that, but deffinitly helps with stubborn muscles.

You could say stretching in the rehab world is what concentration curls are to the lifting world. They might help get your bi's to a bigger size, but it's unlikely you'll get big bi's by only doing concentration curls, ya know.. It's a case of how you apply it..

What you said about gym class is exactly why I like to just 'question' things. A lot of the stuff we do comes from gym class. Hamstring stretching is one. I was having a debate with this woman that used to train, and she criticised me for not giving my sis hamstring and lower back stretches. When I asked her WHY I should give her those stretches, she couldn't actually tell me. She did say, "they're tight", and I said, "how do you know" and she didn't actually know. I'm pretty sure she also got taught that in gym class, and that's the only reason she thinks you should do it. I'm all for stretching any muscle that's tight, but i'm against stretching muscles just for the sake of stretching them...

As an aside, the toe touch test on it's own is usually a poor measure of hamstring flexiblity. You can fail the test as a result of tight hip flexors/quads...

Most people, including me for many years, do toe touches by flexing the L-spine, not stretching the hammies. I can put my palms flat on the floor between my feet, but I promise that's not coming from my hips.

Jungledoc wrote:Most people, including me for many years, do toe touches by flexing the L-spine, not stretching the hammies. I can put my palms flat on the floor between my feet, but I promise that's not coming from my hips.

Well, obviously some ROM is coming from the hips, unless your squeezing the glutes throughout or you're in very severe anterior tilt and most of your hip flexion ROM has been 'used up'...

The use of each joint depends on a persons limitations. But, hamstring tightness is typically not a hamstring limitation... It's just 'assumed', normally without reason...

I think I'm in an unusal position, since I've been doing a fairly wide range of static stretches pretty regularly since childhood. Consequently, I've been able to maintain an unusually high level of flexibility, something that served me well in both Judo and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu.

pdellorto wrote:I'd prefer to see a sticky of myths that are solidly common myths, not just training methods that people don't like.

I'd say, "you have to eat heaps of protein to gain muscle as a beginner" is a pretty widespread myth. I often see people recommending to some 70-100kg person fresh to weight training to consume 200-450g of protein a day. Perhaps they get a commission from the protein powder companies, but more likely it's just a myth. For example, a PT at my gym boasts of eating over 1.2kg of meat and fish daily, which in combination with his protein powders and other food give him over 500g protein daily.

Summary
From experience and the science, it appears that,

Normal levels of protein (0.8-1.2g protein/kg bodyweight daily) are enough, provided there is an overall calorie surplus, for someone to grow lean mass in their first 3-9 months training

this same level of protein is enough to maintain mass at any stage

After the beginner stage, 1.2-2.5g protein/kg bodyweight assist in lean mass gains, provided there is an overall calorie surplus

More than that is simply excreted by the body, and may in fact be dangerous to liver and kidney

Detail
In my own experience and seeing lots of Army boys beef up, what's important is simply consuming more energy than you expend. Do that and you grow - no exercise, and you grow fat, exercise and you grow muscle.

So much for anecdotes, let's look at the science:

People on low-protein diets due to kidney disease did weight training for 12 weeks, and all gained muscle mass [source].

Healthy novices can gain mass with less than 0.8g protein/kg bodyweight, since the very fact of weight-training makes your body more likely to retain protein [source].

In all three studies, a calorie surplus was needed; they needed to consume more than they expended.

The studies quoted are illustrative not exhaustive, it's not hard to find others saying much the same thing: for someone in their first 3-9 months of weight training, so long as they've a calorie surplus, you'll grow muscle. It doesn't seem to be important how much of your calories come from carbohydrates or protein - I don't know of many studies on how fat intake affects it.

Apparently, the regular old 0.8g protein/kg bodyweight is enough to maintain whatever strength and size you already have, provided you continue training. [source]

More than 2-2.5g protein/kg bodyweight has not been shown to have any benefit compared to 1-2g protein/kg BW for athletes trying to gain strength and mass [source]

- for beginners protein of less than 0.8g/kg BW combined with weight training and calorie surplus does not lead to strength and lean mass gains;
- and/or that for intermediate or advanced people, consuming more than 2.5g/kg gives better gains than the 0.8-2.5g/kg range.

Let's use science, not broscience.

I don't argue that beginners having big protein shakes gain mass. But is it the protein, or just the extra calories? The science suggests it's the extra calories.

Novices can gain muscle mass and strength under less than optimal conditions (both diet and training). However, to make optimal gains and continue making gains past the beginner stange they'll need more protein than a sedentary person. Raising total calories without raising protein intake doesn't make much sense.

- for beginners protein of less than 0.8g/kg BW combined with weight training and calorie surplus does not lead to strength and lean mass gains;
- and/or that for intermediate or advanced people, consuming more than 2.5g/kg gives better gains than the 0.8-2.5g/kg range.

Let's use science, not broscience.

I don't argue that beginners having big protein shakes gain mass. But is it the protein, or just the extra calories? The science suggests it's the extra calories.

Okay, you follow the science.

I'll follow my oh so lowly "broscience".

We'll conduct our own study. So you eat .25grams per pound, and I'll eat 2grams per pound. We'll see who gets further faster.

Ha ha, I don't need someone in a lab coat to tell me what I've seen work with my own eyes, with my own body. On top of the fact, everyone I consider large, eats a lot of protein & recommends it to others with a goal of gaining size. The lab coats in my view, are guys with callused hands, wide backs and traps that you could feed a family of 8 with.

Dude it's laughable honestly. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE I have ever met that isn't a twig eats more than .25grams per pound. My wife eats more than .25grams per pound. I gain better over 200grams a day then under, that is for sure.

And like Matt said, beginner can gain just looking at weights, eating carrots & beer. It's really a moot point how much protein they need.

- for beginners protein of less than 0.8g/kg BW combined with weight training and calorie surplus does not lead to strength and lean mass gains;
- and/or that for intermediate or advanced people, consuming more than 2.5g/kg gives better gains than the 0.8-2.5g/kg range.

Let's use science, not broscience.

I don't argue that beginners having big protein shakes gain mass. But is it the protein, or just the extra calories? The science suggests it's the extra calories.

You are the one that made the claim. You have the burden of proof. We do not need to disprove you. Saying we are skeptical does not mean we agree with the point you are debunking either.

In fact I do think the upper part of your range is excessive. It doesn't cause any problems, but it isn't going to cause more muscle gain either. Now the lower part of that range is about right I think. Lots of top coaches agree too. I know that authority proves nothing, but we have no evidence either way. The only studies are done on the average population and show the minimum needed to stave off malnutrition. So expert opinion is the best information we have right now. If eating more protein does no harm, than logic would dictate eating more protein because we are not sure if we need it or not. {neutral or positive} is better than {neutral or negative}. That's an easy choice.

Matt brings up a good point that beginners can make gains under less than optimal conditions. So what a beginner can gain on is irrelevant. What a beginner can make optimal gains on is more relevant. That would be the same conditions as anyone else. Their gains would just be that much better.

If in the face of linked references you dispute my claim, the burden passes over to you. That's the way these things work. For example, in reviewing a paper in a scientific journal, a scientist does not say, "you're wrong!" and leave it at that. They explain why it's wrong, and provide their own references. Eventually some consensus is found.

I think the needs of beginners - as distinct from intermediate or advanced - are an important issue, firstly because people have to be beginners to reach intermediate or advanced, and also because in gyms and with personal trainers, school coaches and the like, what you mostly encounter is beginners. Also, most people never get past the beginner stage, they give up partway in; but of those who pass the beginner stage, the muscle and fitness gains made there, most are happy just to maintain them.

Somewhere on the site is a breakdown of strength categories, and after "untrained", there's "novice", which is described as a level of strength which can support any normal day-to-day activities, and some recreational activity requiring some strength. That's about as far as most people will ever go. So the nutrition needed to reach and maintain that level is a pretty important subject.

As I said though, most people never even get to the novice stage, giving up partway in. One contributor to that is the broscience floating around which overwhelms them, different types of proteins and so on, and the financial and organisational burden of having 6 meals a day and buying and carting around buckets of protein powder and supplements. If it's the case that all that stuff is necessary, well then what can we do, that's that. But if it's not actually necessary, then it becomes much easier to get people to stick with their training.

what a beginner can gain on is irrelevant. What a beginner can make optimal gains on is more relevant.

This distinction is true. But I wouldn't say what a beginner can gain on is "irrelevant"; the myth is that for them to gain at all they must consume hundreds of grams of protein daily.

However, the distinction between "gains" and "optimal gains" is an important one, as you say, and this doesn't appear to have been well-studied. It's a difficult area, because the variations in intensity of training and people's sleep and starting body composition will muddy the waters somewhat in comparing someone who gets 0.8g vs someone with 1.1g or 1.2g or whatever. There are a lot of variables.

Kyle Aaron wrote:
As I said though, most people never even get to the novice stage, giving up partway in. One contributor to that is the broscience floating around which overwhelms them,

I would say laziness is MUCH more of a factor than "broscience." (I'm still not sure if your trying to be insulting with that term or not.) Everyone thinks they can just walk into a gym and BAM the fat melts off and the muscle packs on.

God, you have no idea how many times ANYONE with muscle is around and all the fat & skinny fat people all whisper "he must use da steroids," to feel better about sitting on their a$$ and eating a gallon of ice cream every night.

No, he sweats and burns, he works hard. He doesn't use some silly "study" to justify his lack of progress. He eats a lot & lifts a lot, and sometimes does crunches too. This isn't easy, self IMPROVEMENT isn't supposed to be.

How much protein someone eats has very little to do with if they keep lifting OTHER than if they DON'T EAT ENOUGH, MAKE NO PROGRESS because they under ate and quit from frustration.

different types of proteins and so on, and the financial and organisational burden of having 6 meals a day and buying and carting around buckets of protein powder and supplements.

I gain quite nice from 3 meals a day & one snack, and my extreme "burden" protein powder, never leaves my k-word counter. I bring lunch & a jar of PB to work. You know thinking about it now, I should just quit, that is a lot of work.

(No wonder the rest of the world thinks American's are lazy.)

People don't need powder or supplements at all, they just make life easier.

If it's the case that all that stuff is necessary, well then what can we do, that's that. But if it's not actually necessary, then it becomes much easier to get people to stick with their training.

It is not necessary, who ever even said that? It's easy, not necessary to use powders. Plus your original rant was on protein, not supplements.

Dude, lifting and self improvement are not for everyone. The need or not for supplements is totally irrelevant to whether someone is going to "make it past the novice stage."

Some people are going to take up space at the gym just to feel good about themselves, maybe get some 15 inch arms, think he is hot stuff and be done. Some are going to never be happy, some are going to strive for more. Some people will make progress. It has nothing to do with supplements.

Your argument is flirting dangerously with being non-sequitur(sp).

However, the distinction between "gains" and "optimal gains" is an important one, as you say, and this doesn't appear to have been well-studied. It's a difficult area, because the variations in intensity of training and people's sleep and starting body composition will muddy the waters somewhat in comparing someone who gets 0.8g vs someone with 1.1g or 1.2g or whatever. There are a lot of variables.

Can you tell us about your progress & how these studies helped you get there?

If in the face of linked references you dispute my claim, the burden passes over to you. That's the way these things work. For example, in reviewing a paper in a scientific journal, a scientist does not say, "you're wrong!" and leave it at that. They explain why it's wrong, and provide their own references. Eventually some consensus is found.

I think the needs of beginners - as distinct from intermediate or advanced - are an important issue, firstly because people have to be beginners to reach intermediate or advanced, and also because in gyms and with personal trainers, school coaches and the like, what you mostly encounter is beginners. Also, most people never get past the beginner stage, they give up partway in; but of those who pass the beginner stage, the muscle and fitness gains made there, most are happy just to maintain them.

Somewhere on the site is a breakdown of strength categories, and after "untrained", there's "novice", which is described as a level of strength which can support any normal day-to-day activities, and some recreational activity requiring some strength. That's about as far as most people will ever go. So the nutrition needed to reach and maintain that level is a pretty important subject.

As I said though, most people never even get to the novice stage, giving up partway in. One contributor to that is the broscience floating around which overwhelms them, different types of proteins and so on, and the financial and organisational burden of having 6 meals a day and buying and carting around buckets of protein powder and supplements. If it's the case that all that stuff is necessary, well then what can we do, that's that. But if it's not actually necessary, then it becomes much easier to get people to stick with their training.

what a beginner can gain on is irrelevant. What a beginner can make optimal gains on is more relevant.

This distinction is true. But I wouldn't say what a beginner can gain on is "irrelevant"; the myth is that for them to gain at all they must consume hundreds of grams of protein daily.

However, the distinction between "gains" and "optimal gains" is an important one, as you say, and this doesn't appear to have been well-studied. It's a difficult area, because the variations in intensity of training and people's sleep and starting body composition will muddy the waters somewhat in comparing someone who gets 0.8g vs someone with 1.1g or 1.2g or whatever. There are a lot of variables.

Well, I thought your links were the usual studies which I addressed. However I will check them in detail and see if you have anything additional.

I never said the needs of the beginner are not important. It just doesn't really mean anything because they can make some kind of gains with pretty much anything. Optimal gains means a lot more. we both agree there is very little good data on this. So eating more protein is a good idea just because we don't know and it doesn't hurt anything.

Now if all you are saying is that it is false that beginners need hundreds of grams of protein per day to gain at all, then I totally agree with that. That isn't much of a myth though. I have a heard a lot of crazy BS stories, but that isn't one of them. Maybe it's a regional thing.

I agree about the broscience. it's pretty dumb. All that Weider crap and 90% of supplements are useless.